This was at least 2 and a half years after the Kelly murder. You seriously think witnesses are expected to keep in touch with police for the rest of their lives?

With "5" murdered/mutilated victims yes.Years just like Lawende.1892 at least.

---

__________________
Clearly the first human laws (way older and already established) spawned organized religion's morality - from which it's writers only copied/stole,ex. you cannot kill,rob,steal (forced, otherwise people run back to the hills,no towns).
M. Pacana

In the case of Sadler, who ya gonna call? The man who saw a 'sailor like' man chatting up Kate 10 minutes before her body was found, or the man who saw an overdressed Jewish toff with Mary perhaps HOURS before she died?

It's a no-brainer. If your suspect is Sadler, and you're seeking to charge him, you go with Lawende.

And this tells us exactly zip about what the police thought of Hutchinson.

And anyway, some here clearly have amazingly flexible pretzel logic. Hutchinson is supposedly in Australia in 1889 on his way to sexually exposing himself to school children, but the fact that the police don't use him in London as a witness in 1891 shows that he was debunked.

The Stride murder was six weeks before. Is Bowyer likely to remember a description as given by Packer after that length of time? I think the Western Mail has got the facts wrong, and we just cant get away from primary and secondary can we

Trevor.

The comparison just might be being made by the journalist, not Bowyer.

"Harry Bowyer states that on Wednesday night he saw a man speaking to Kelly who resembled the description given by the fruiterer of the supposed Berner Street murderer."

Hi Jon,
If you had read the book you would be in a position to state whether or not the suggested identification succeeded or failed, but you haven’t, so you aren’t.

I didn't.

Researchers who DID read the book provided that conclusion.
Where is this going?, you seem to be taking the position that Senise did provide the necessary evidence.
If he did (in your opinion), why don't you say so, but if he didn't, then why are you arguing?

Quote:

No, I’m not secretly promoting Mr. Senise’s book; I’m actively promoting it, because it’s a cracking good read with excellent original research, regardless of what you think of Hutchinson as a suspect or his proposed identification.

I never said it wasn't a good read, no-one has said that to my knowledge.
A well written book is no substitute for failing to prove the connection.

Quote:

We assume, logically, that this issue was cleared up beyond question when Bowyer was first interviewed.

On what basis?
The day of his statement the only prevalent theory was Kelly was murdered in the late morning. There was no cause to ask about men coming and going through the night, and his statement basically testifies to that.

Quote:

The police were not, and are not, in the business of asking fresh witnesses to “confirm” events related by others.

It happens all the time, which goes to show how much you really know.

Quote:

As soon as the police were alerted to the likelihood that the murder occurred in the small hours of the morning, i.e. well in advance of the inquest,....

And that happened on the evening of the 12th, the day of the inquest.
If you think it happened before the inquest then show me the report - prove your assertion.

Quote:

The fact that no mention was made by Bowyer at the inquest of any 3.00am stranger is a certain indication that he responded in the negative to an earlier, pre-inquest police question along those very lines.

Who asked him that at the inquest?

Quote:

The police were alerted to the probability of an early morning murder way in advance of Hutchinson coming forward.

Like I said, show me...
The description of Blotchy was never published as a suspect, and they knew about him from the 9th.
Cries of "murder" were common place, many testified to that, and the police knew it from experience, so that was no firm indication.
So what are you left with, Dr Bond's report?
Shame it doesn't support a murder at 3:00 am.
I think your pockets are empty Ben, you have nothing.

Quote:

Not this nonsense again, I beseech you, Jon. You did much the same with Lewis/Kennedy to much horrified incredulity.

Gesticulating changes nothing, if you know a case where two witnesses are brought to an inquest to make the same statements, then show me.
Complaining doesn't change the fact it doesn't happen.

Quote:

It wasn’t the “same story”; it was two entirely separate witnesses offering apparent corroboration for a specific version of events; namely that Kelly was alive at 9.00am on Friday.

You're thinking about a trial, not an inquest.
The coroner is not charging anyone with murder, he only needs to know if the victim was alive after 9:00 am. Only one witness is necessary

How do you mean "just like Lawende"?
Are you saying he was required to keep in touch with the police?

I think you will have a hard time substantiating this supposed requirement.

Hypothetically,it's 1888,with no DNA/fingerprints/confession,if you are in charge,this witness Hutchinson was truthful,would you lose contact with him when the case has not yet been closed.What if you find a suspect,what are you going to do,coerce a confession.You need a witness,the only hope,exactly what they did with Lawende using him as that witness..And if the witness had doubts in identifying the "suspect" would you use him instead of a witness who can identify the "suspect" and saw him for 15 minutes.I understand you would use the former.At the very least both are needed.
The police had to be very dumb to lose contact with this witness/Hutch.But his testimony was bad,they were forced to choose the witness who had doubts in identifying the "suspect" .

----

__________________
Clearly the first human laws (way older and already established) spawned organized religion's morality - from which it's writers only copied/stole,ex. you cannot kill,rob,steal (forced, otherwise people run back to the hills,no towns).
M. Pacana

Hypothetically,it's 1888,with no DNA/fingerprints/confession,if you are in charge,this witness Hutchinson was truthful,would you lose contact with him when the case has not yet been closed.What if you find a suspect,what are you going to do,coerce a confession.You need a witness,the only hope,exactly what they did with Lawende using him as that witness..And if the witness had doubts in identifying the "suspect" would you use him instead of a witness who can identify the "suspect" and saw him for 15 minutes.I understand you would use the former.At the very least both are needed.
The police had to be very dumb to lose contact with this witness/Hutch.But his testimony was bad,they were forced to choose the witness who had doubts in identifying the "suspect" .

----

You say they would have to be dumb.
The reality is, the police have no authority to do what you say.

In the case of Sadler, who ya gonna call? The man who saw a 'sailor like' man chatting up Kate 10 minutes before her body was found, or the man who saw an overdressed Jewish toff with Mary perhaps HOURS before she died?

It's a no-brainer. If your suspect is Sadler, and you're seeking to charge him, you go with Lawende.

And this tells us exactly zip about what the police thought of Hutchinson.

And anyway, some here clearly have amazingly flexible pretzel logic. Hutchinson is supposedly in Australia in 1889 on his way to sexually exposing himself to school children, but the fact that the police don't use him in London as a witness in 1891 shows that he was debunked.

Talk about wanting it both ways...

Not really rj. Hutch was apparently debunked shortly after his story. Long before he made his way to australia.

__________________"Is all that we see or seem
but a dream within a dream?"
-Edgar Allan Poe

"...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."
-Frederick G. Abberline

By Hutchinson's account she tried to tap him up for sixpence. Given her line of work, that suggests he might have found a bed for the night if he'd been in funds, doesn't it?

If Lechmere lied then so did the 'J' Division Pc John Neill, who claimed not to have seen or spoken to him. Why would he do that?

But hutch didnt have funds, and quickly got dumped for another man, classic circs for a stalking situation. Which IMHO hutch then does, following her around, waiting in the middle of the night watching for her, and in his press account, even going next to her door to see if he could here anything.

Re your second point. Hutch lying to mizen about being wanted in bucks row dosnt mean Neil lied about it too. Not sure of your reasoning there at all.

__________________"Is all that we see or seem
but a dream within a dream?"
-Edgar Allan Poe

"...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."
-Frederick G. Abberline